Sports and Sexual Segregation

Playing With the Boys

“We should not sort athletes by what sex they are, but rather by their skill,” Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano write in “Playing with the Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports.” At first glance, this book might seem one more example of gender equality gone wild, like coed bathrooms or pornography for women. Mixed-sex football? But give the authors a chance to make their argument and they begin to play with your head. Their book isn’t well-written, and it’s no fun to read, but start thinking about the issues they raise and you may never stop.

Their fundamental point is that the present sexual segregation in sport is based not on physical reality but on anachronistic notions of women as “the weaker sex.” Begin with the rules governing sport. Why should female tennis players be limited to three sets in the majors when the men play five? No reason at all. Why isn’t there a 10-second rule in women’s basketball? Why do female speed skaters compete at shorter distances?

Now extend the logic a little. Is there any legitimate reason why women aren’t umpires in baseball and referees in football? In certain sports, like horse-racing, car-racing and equestrian events, men and women compete on an equal basis. Why not in billiards and chess? In riflery, college teams are coed, but in a fine demonstration of the Olympic Committee’s instinctive and annoying conservatism, Olympic shooting competitions are segregated. This stance was already out of date by the 1940s (Broadway’s Annie Oakley: “Anything you can do, I can do better”).

Actually, the sexual integration that McDonagh and Pappano call for is taking place around the country even as you read this. Everyone is familiar with the efforts of Annika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie to integrate professional golf, and they are probably only the beginning. Girls play on boys’ teams in Little League baseball, and there have even been female place kickers in college football. So why can’t women be kickers in professional football — as long as they can take the hits?

Then shouldn’t women’s sports be abolished altogether? No, the authors rightly argue, because the men, with their superior physical strength, would overwhelm the women. Just think of what would happen in basketball. It makes sense to have separate women’s sports, but it also makes sense to allow women to enter men’s competitions if they are capable. We’re interested in the best athletes in a sport, not the best male athletes.

Besides, there are areas where women have a physical edge over men, like endurance. (Female rats run longer than male rats, as do male rats who have been given estrogen.) If ultra marathons and long-distance swimming ever become popular sports, we may have to establish separate races for men because of their physical disadvantages. In dogsledding, we may need separate Iditarods.

You can see that a lot of thinking is required to sort all this out. And the examples above are the easy cases. The real can of worms is opened up with sports like gymnastics and figure skating, where the judging is based on supposed sexual differences: strength for men, grace for women. Is this another outmoded gender distinction? McDonagh and Pappano seem to think so. They envision couples-skating with a larger woman lifting a smaller man.

I don’t think so. Let me put it bluntly: just as women overall will never match men in sheer body strength, so men overall will never match women in gracefulness. If this is wrong, we can expect to see enormous changes in rhythmic gymnastics.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

I played high school hockey, and we practiced with the girls team one day. Their goaltending was insane (women are more flexible than men, and their goalie was, to put it simply, better than either of ours could ever imagine to be). However, they did have the leading scorer in the state on their team. She couldn’t keep up with our third line.

If women should be able to compete in men’s sports, then should I be able to go and play for a women’s college hockey team? I have no where near the ability to play varsity men’s hockey, but what if I could cut it for a women’s varsity team? Would that be ok?

“gracefulness”? are you serious? Yes, us girls are naturally very good at pointing our dainty toes and extending our petite hands to make long, beautiful, delicate lines. It is a comfort to know that women can make up for a lack “sheer body strength” with the artistic merit scores of judges based on our gracefulness.
I’m pretty sure you should read the book again, you’ve obviously missed the point if you are relegating women’s natural ability to ambiguous notions of grace and style.

But it’s not about men and women overall, it’s about individual athletes. Whether or not women in general are more graceful has nothing to do with the individual performance of Mikhail Baryshnikov or Michael Jordan.

“Their fundamental point is that the present sexual segregation in sport is based not on physical reality but on anachronistic notions of women as ‘the weaker sex.’”

That’s a generalization. In 1972, women runners staged a 10-minute sit-down protest against a separate start for women at the NYC Marathon. However, the NYC Marathon now starts 75-100 elite women runners 30 minutes before the rest of the field, and the London Marathon, the Boston Marathon, and many other marathons have followed suit. The folks arguing for a single start these days are the “traditionalists.”

“Besides, there are areas where women have a physical edge over men, like endurance. (Female rats run longer than male rats, as do male rats who have been given estrogen.) If ultra marathons and long-distance swimming ever become popular sports, we may have to establish separate races for men because of their physical disadvantages.”

The marathon IS an endurance event and an ultramarathon is defined as any race greater than 26.2 miles. According your theory, at what distance does the hypothetical estrogen advantage kick in?

I can only assume, with what may be too much optimism, that the last paragraph was an ill-advised joke.

“At first glance, this book might seem one more example of gender equality gone wild, like coed bathrooms or pornography for women.”

Why exactly is the idea of porn for women “wild?” Ordinary men like porn; why wouldn’t ordinary women? Oh, right – because women don’t have libidos and aren’t interested in sex, and any woman who claims otherwise is just one of those wacky feminists. Seriously, are we in the nineteenth century here?

Also, I’m sure male dancers are loving that last paragraph. Where’s your proof that women are more graceful and less sexual than men? Or is it just “common sense?”

Barriers may be falling for top ranked female high school and college athletes, but theres’ still a need for an overall social/cultural shift in American society at large. My 10 year old insists on having her hair cut in a crew cut, so she can be taken seriously as an athlete (not a female athlete) by other parents when she is on the playing field. Her ability is not an issue; how she feels she is perceived is. Real social change still needs to occur.

The book is well-written, and gives a logical argument to why sports matters as an equality issue in America, historically and into the future. It is thought-provoking, in terms of not just celebrating those who become star female athletes. The light bulb went on for me while reading this book, in terms of the impact of the negative messages our young girl athletes constantly come up against from well meaning friends, parents/grandparents, and the media. These are not the “in your face” messages, but the subtle wearing down of one’s spirit. This book helped me realize that should she continue in boys sports, or eventually switch to women’s athletics, it should be based on skill and desire. The fight should be on the playing field; not to stay there comfortably.

I agree with you completly on the fact that sports should be sexually integrated. I believe that a woman can be just as strong as a man. However, women are not the only ones suffering from segregation. For example, gymnasts have different events. What I want to know is if women get the right to participate in sports the same will men get to compete on Balance Beam and Uneven Bars and will women get to compete on Pommel Horse, Still Rings, Parallel Bars and Horizontal Bars. And finally will men get to compete in Rhythmic Gymnastics or will this only benefit the women. I want to be able to do all the Gymnastics events not just the mens. So remember men are segregated in sports too. Look at synchronized swimming.

Taylor, your second sentence is wrong and is the reason why sports aren’t already unified. Because the physical disparities between most men and most women are just that different. Nevermind the fact that biologically, men have greater potential for great strength. As far as men’s gymnastics are concerned…..one of the biggest reasons, I think, that no one is really clamoring for men’s rythmic gymanstics, is probably because it would look a tad bit fruity.

To Respect, who I think had a fit of epic stupidity and heterosexism when writing that last sentence, I would like to say so what? There are obvious physical differences between men and women, I agree. However, there were also obvious physical differences between African American and Caucasian men that were brought to public attention during the debate over ending racial segregation in sports. Should African American men be confined to a separate league because it might damage the chances of a white male getting the position? Most people reading that would think it was a completely archaic claim, and point to successful Caucasian professional sports players post-integration. While this issue may be the reverse, the core of this idea holds true. Talented women will eventually find their niche in sports, adapting to the increased level of play. Those who can’t handle that type of competition will play in minor leagues.

It bothered me, as a woman who played on varsity and college boys teams, that girls were measured on a handicapped standard. Those who are on par with the boys are punished for the mediocre performance of their sex, which was perpetuated by segregation and gender stereotypes and not allowed to play competitively.

We are allowing ourselves to justify the last major form of segregation (separate but equal, anyone?) and that just doesn’t mesh with my interpretation of our young girls’ rights as American citizens.